Robert S. Rayburn Retires

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Per an article on The Aquila Report, Robert S. Rayburn is retiring from Faith Presbyterian Church in Tacoma, Washington, which he's pastored since 1978.

Doesn't he hold an unusual theological or practical position or two? I seem to remember something along those lines from some years back.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Doesn't he hold an unusual theological or practical position or two? I seem to remember something along those lines from some years back.
Yes. He believed in paedocommunion (at least in the early 2000s) but was honorable enough not to practice it in his church because of its confession.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
No, not confused. Reymond's ST is wonderful. It's Raymond who had some sort of problem.
Well now I'm confused. The only "Raymond" showing up in this thread is me!

For what it's worth, I looked back and remembered Pastor Rayburn wrote a minority report in favor of paedocommunion. He still holds to it and has written, preached, and debated in favor of it.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Well now I'm confused. The only "Raymond" showing up in this thread is me!

For what it's worth, I looked back and remembered Pastor Rayburn wrote a minority report in favor of paedocommunion. He still holds to it and has written, preached, and debated in favor of it.
Oops! Bad fingers. It's "Rayburn," not "Raymond." Didn't have any Cheerios today, I guess.
 

SavedSinner

Puritan Board Freshman
Per an article on The Aquila Report, Robert S. Rayburn is retiring from Faith Presbyterian Church in Tacoma, Washington, which he's pastored since 1978.

Doesn't he hold an unusual theological or practical position or two? I seem to remember something along those lines from some years back.
 

SavedSinner

Puritan Board Freshman
That church was started by people from the BP in the mid-20th century, so they were pre-millenial and of course only pre-mil pastors. Also, he was convinced of liturgical worship, way before it took off in the PCA and OPC churches, when liturgical used to be a "bad" word. They installed equipment for kneeling in worship (I don't think many reformed churches have gone this far yet). He spent some time in Aberdeen Scotland under the influence of William Still, who also influenced Sinclair Ferguson. But he would be on the opposite side from them on a lot (pre-mil, very liturgical, very critical of the FV trial, etc.). I'e heard of some informal ties to the Moscow, Idaho people, so that is what you might be thinking of.
 

SavedSinner

Puritan Board Freshman
Hah, thanks, well you should know! I would say that would be the "unusual" thing that the original poster was thinking of: defense minister for an FV teacher. I guess it all goes together, "Federal Vision", paedocommunion, Anglican liturgy.
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
No, not confused. Reymond's ST is wonderful. It's Raymond who had some sort of problem.
The person who originally posted likely meant who he said, R-burn.

Letham gave Reymond a tough review on his ST. Reymond took some of those things to heart and made substantial revisions.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Letham gave Reymond a tough review on his ST. Reymond took some of those things to heart and made substantial revisions.
What's interesting about this is that I saw a copy of the second edition of Reymond's ST, but there is no indication of what has been changed. No new preface or anything of the sort (even the pagination between the two editions is virtually the same, as I remember). So, not knowing what would be changed, I didn't buy it. If either Reymond or the publisher couldn't be bothered to tell us what's new and/or different, well, it wouldn't be worth my time to buy it and read the entire second edition just to see what's changed.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
What's interesting about this is that I saw a copy of the second edition of Reymond's ST, but there is no indication of what has been changed. No new preface or anything of the sort (even the pagination between the two editions is virtually the same, as I remember). So, not knowing what would be changed, I didn't buy it. If either Reymond or the publisher couldn't be bothered to tell us what's new and/or different, well, it wouldn't be worth my time to buy it and read the entire second edition just to see what's changed.
I too have heard that there were significant changes between the two editions, but I have never done any significant textual criticism to see what exactly they were. Does anyone know of any comparative studies between the two editions that highlight the changes?
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
I too have heard that there were significant changes between the two editions, but I have never done any significant textual criticism to see what exactly they were. Does anyone know of any comparative studies between the two editions that highlight the changes?
In the first, he rejected certain Nicene categories. He also interpreted Nicene language incorrectly, going so far as to posit that the Westminster Assembly might have (even, “much more likely”) rejected eternal generation and spiration in favor of Calvin, but I believe he also got Calvin wrong.

His interpretation of the creed left him with only the Father as God in and of himself, who in turn deifies the Son. They both then deify the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, either he got the creed wrong or else the creed is heretical.
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Junior
His interpretation of the creed left him with only the Father as God in and of himself, who in turn deifies the Son. They both then deify the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, either he got the creed wrong or else the creed is heretical.
Are you saying he is saying this about the Creed, or that this is his belief? Because this most certainly is not his belief. The substance of his argument is that aseity is essential to deity, so therefore the Son, if he is truly God, must be a se. Generation of his essence from the Father would obliterate the Son’s aseity, so therefore the Father must generate at most the Son’s person. He took issue not with the Creed’s use of “very God from very God,” necessarily, but with the Nicene Fathers’ own interpretation of it, which would indicate they thought the Son received his very essence from the Father.

So, as I read him, Reymond does not deny eternal generation per se, but only eternal generation of essence.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
As close as it might seem, Robert Reymond's ST is off topic. If people would like to discuss said ST, a new thread would be appropriate.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
His father, Robert G Rayburn, wrote an influential book on liturgy in 1980 that predated the works of Robert Webber, etc. The elder Rayburn was President of Covenant College and Seminary and was among those who left the Bible Presbyterian Church in the 50s along with the likes of Schaeffer and Buswell. This group merged with another one to become the RPCES which was eventually received into the PCA in the early 80s.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Rayburn

Covenant succession is another teaching that the younger Rayburn is associated with, along with the related practice of paedocommunion.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top